Understanding the Limits of Our Own Understanding
As a human being, it is easy to be lulled into believing that we understand a lot — that we have a good sense of how the world works and how we can mold it to better match our needs and desires. I mean, we have science and philosophy and all sorts of other scholarly disciplines that have figured out nearly everything. Is that really the case? Do we really understand how the world works? Or do we just believe that we do?
What are the limitation of our own understanding?
One of our primary ways of understanding our surroundings are our sensory input. But can we trust our senses? Do our sensory organs and tissues have limitations? We have learned that dogs can smell many more scents than us. And they can even use the decay of a scent to tell time or to understand what may have left a scent in a certain spot. Does this indicate that our olfactory systems have limitations that other species don’t?
What about our sense of hearing? Human can generally hear frequencies between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. But other species can hear infrasound, or sounds that have lower frequencies than 20 Hz. And some species can hear ultrasonic frequencies — those higher than 20,000 Hz. Does this mean that there are sounds we just can’t hear?
And then there is our sense of sight. Are there things we can’t see but know are there? Modern science has developed ways of seeing or detecting atoms, molecules, cells — even subatomic particles. But unaided by these scientific advances, could we see these tiny units of reality? Is this a major limitation to our capabilities of sight? One that, for most of our history as a species, prevented us from understanding what our reality is made up of on a granular level? Are there other limitations to our sense of sight? What about infrared and ultraviolet light? Bees can see ultraviolet light. Snakes, bullfrogs, and some species of fish can see infrared light. But we humans do not consider those spectra of light “visible light,” because we cannot see it with our visual systems. Is seeing with your eyes an illusion?
We could ponder the limitations of our other sense as well, but I think you get the point.
Is there also a limitation on our understanding that has to do with our ability to process context? Or the limitations thereof? There is only so much that we can sense — only so much that we can be aware of in our surroundings. Our brains have evolved to only consciously process what is most salient in certain contexts, in order to help us survive those situations. And context is often key to understanding. But if we are only able to process a fraction of the context in each situation, does that mean we have context processing limitations? What are the implications for our ability to understand reality?
And if our brains have context processing limitations, what does that say for our ability to comprehend the staggering complexity and interdependence of our universe? Is it safe to assume that everything is more complex than we would expect? That everything is more interdependent than we assume? Do we as a species tinker with physical systems on our planet, perhaps without the most robust understanding of the consequences of those actions because we cannot fully understand the complexity and interdependence of our reality? Because our understanding is inherently limited?
And, are there things that are just unknowable? What happens when we die? What is the point of life? Is there a higher being that created the universe? Is karma real? Are there actions that are inherently morally right or wrong? For thousands of years, humans have sought answers to these questions but have come up empty-handed. And then there is Donald Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns.” As enumerated above, there are things we know that we don’t or can’t know. But what about the things we don’t even know that we don’t or can’t know about?
Is this what it means to understand the limits of our own understanding?